Palm oil and “veganism is worse”

Summary

Palm oil has serious biodiversity impacts in some regions, but it is not uniquely “vegan,” and many animal products also drive habitat loss and higher emissions. The rational approach is to reduce overall demand for deforestation-linked commodities and choose certified/deforestation-free sources where available.

Supported by 2 cited sources

Key Points

1Palm oil is a legitimate environmental concern — but it is not uniquely or even primarily a vegan issue.
2The data shows that palm oil is embedded throughout the entire food system, and animal agriculture is a significant driver of demand.
3This means that consuming dairy and meat products drives significant palm oil demand — often more per calorie than direct plant-based consumption.
4Palm oil is the world's most land-efficient vegetable oil crop.

Evidence Summary

The Claim

"Vegans use palm oil, which destroys rainforests, so veganism is hypocritical and no better for the environment."

What the Evidence Actually Shows

Where Palm Oil Actually Goes

According to the World Wildlife Fund, approximately 68% of global palm oil is used in food products — ranging from cooking oils and margarine to chocolate, bread, and pizza — including food for farmed animals. Another 27% goes to industrial applications such as soaps, detergents, cosmetics, and cleaning products. Only about 5% is used for biofuel globally, though this varies significantly by country (in Germany, for example, bioenergy accounts for 41% of palm oil use) (WWF, 2024; Cazzolla Gatti et al., 2023).

Palm Oil in Animal Feed

A fact rarely mentioned in the "vegans use palm oil" argument: palm kernel cake (a byproduct of palm oil extraction) is a major ingredient in livestock feed worldwide. According to the Rainforest Action Network, palm oil-based animal feed has become the largest category of palm oil imports into the United States, meaning staple dairy products like milk and cheese contain "embedded" palm oil. Palm kernel meal can constitute up to 50% of dairy cattle feed and up to 80% of beef cattle feed by weight (RAN, 2023).

Land Efficiency: Why Boycotting Palm Oil Could Backfire

According to Our World in Data and the WWF:

Palm oil supplies 40% of the world's vegetable oil demand on just under 6% of the land used to produce all vegetable oils
Oil palm trees yield 4 to 10 times more oil per hectare than soybean, sunflower, or rapeseed
To produce the same amount of oil from alternatives, you would need 4 to 10 times more land, potentially driving even more deforestation in other regions

This does not mean palm oil production is harmless — it means that switching to alternative oils without reducing total consumption could increase total deforestation, not decrease it (Our World in Data, 2024).

Deforestation: The Real Problem

Palm oil expansion has been a major driver of tropical deforestation, particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia, which together produce about 85% of the world's palm oil. Key impacts include:

Loss of tropical rainforest and peatland habitat
Threats to endangered species including orangutans, Sumatran tigers, and pygmy elephants
Significant greenhouse gas emissions from peatland drainage and burning
Displacement of indigenous communities

These are serious harms that deserve honest acknowledgment.

RSPO Certification: Progress and Limits

The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) certifies palm oil produced under sustainability criteria. As of 2024:

16.1 million tonnes of palm oil are RSPO certified
This represents 20.1% of global production
RSPO certification prohibits primary forest clearing and requires protection of high conservation value areas

Sources: WWF (2024); Our World in Data (2024); RSPO Impact Report (2024); Rainforest Action Network (2023); Cazzolla Gatti et al. (2023), Agricultural and Food Economics; Poore & Nemecek (2018), Science.

However, critics note that RSPO standards have enforcement gaps and that 80% of global production remains uncertified. Certification is a meaningful but incomplete solution (RSPO Impact Report, 2024).

Supporting Evidence

Based on Poore & Nemecek (2018) meta-analysis of 38,700 farms and Springmann et al. (2018) global modeling.

Sources:

The Bottom Line

Palm oil is a real environmental problem, but using it as an argument specifically against veganism ignores that: (a) animal agriculture drives massive palm oil demand through feed, (b) palm oil is in products consumed by everyone regardless of diet, and (c) veganism's overall land-use footprint remains dramatically smaller than omnivorous diets. The honest approach is to support sustainable palm oil sourcing AND reduce animal product consumption — these goals are complementary, not contradictory.

Practical Takeaways

Vegans should care about palm oil — and many do. Supporting RSPO-certified or palm-oil-free products is consistent with vegan ethics.
But this is not a vegan-specific problem. Palm oil is in roughly 50% of all supermarket products, and animal agriculture is a major demand driver through animal feed.
Boycotting palm oil entirely could worsen deforestation by shifting demand to less land-efficient alternatives. Targeted pressure for sustainable sourcing is more effective than blanket boycotts.
A vegan diet still uses significantly less total land than an omnivorous diet (Poore & Nemecek, 2018), even accounting for palm oil in vegan processed foods.